Drug Calculation Errors in Anesthesiology Residents and Faculty: An Analysis of Contributing Factors

Comparing the Effectiveness of a Clinical Decision Support Tool in Reducing Pediatric Opioid Dose Calculation Errors: PediPain App vs. Traditional Calculators - A Simulation-Based Randomised Controlled Study

Wrong dose calculation medication errors are widespread in pediatric patients mainly due to weight-based dosing. PediPain app is a clinical decision support tool that provides weight- and age- based dosages for various analgesics. We hypothesized that the use of a clinical decision support tool, the PediPain app versus pocket calculators for calculating pain medication dosages in children reduces the incidence of wrong dosage calculations and shortens the time taken for calculations. The study was a randomised controlled trial comparing the PediPain app vs. pocket calculator for performing eight weight-based calculations for opioids and other analgesics. Participants were healthcare providers routinely administering opioids and other analgesics in their practice. The primary outcome was the incidence of wrong dose calculations. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of wrong dose calculations in simple versus complex calculations; time taken to complete calculations; the occurrence of tenfold; hundredfold errors; and wrong-key presses. A total of 140 residents, fellows and nurses were recruited between June 2018 and November 2019; 70 participants were randomized to control group (pocket calculator) and 70 to the intervention group (PediPain App). After randomization two participants assigned to PediPain group completed the simulation in the control group by mistake. Analysis was by intention-to-treat (PediPain app = 68 participants, pocket calculator = 72 participants). The overall incidence of wrong dose calculation was 178/576 (30.9%) for the control and 23/544 (4.23%) for PediPain App, P < 0·001. The risk difference was - 32.8% [-38.7%, -26.9%] for complex and - 20.5% [-26.3%, -14.8%] for simple calculations. Calculations took longer within control group (median of 69 Sects. [50, 96]) compared to PediPain app group, (median 48 Sects. [38, 63]), P < 0.001. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. A weight-based clinical decision support tool, the PediPain app reduced the incidence of wrong doses calculation. Clinical decision support tools calculating medications may be valuable instruments for reducing medication errors, especially in the pediatric population.

Cardiovascular Drug Administration Errors During Neuraxial Anesthesia or Analgesia-A Narrative Review

The prevalence and harm associated with inadvertent neuraxial cardiovascular (CV) medication administration errors are unknown. This review aims to analyze neuraxial CV drug administration errors and associated clinical consequences. The secondary objective is to identify the causes and contributory factors in order to prevent future incidents. The author reviewed reports of accidental administration of CV medications via neuraxial routes during spinal or epidural anesthesia or analgesia published in the last 5 decades (1972-2022). Twenty-seven publications reported neuraxial administration of 10 different CV drugs among patients aged 1 to 81. Seventeen of the 33 errors occurred via the epidural route. Digoxin (9 patients), ephedrine (6), metaraminol (4), labetalol (4), and dopamine (3) were frequently involved in the incidents. Intrathecal digoxin (8 patients) was associated with paraplegia and encephalopathy, of whom 4 pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery sustained permanent lower limb neurologic deficits. Reversible systemic hemodynamic changes were predominant following the administration of epidural inotropes (dobutamine, dopamine, and epinephrine) and vasopressors (ephedrine and metaraminol). Most administrations (30 out of 32) were only bolus injections. All were preventable skill-based errors. The human factor analysis classification system (HFACS) identified poor organizational climate, inadequate supervision of junior doctors, deficiencies in neuraxial task processes, and incorrect visual perception of objects. The HFACS suggests CV medication safety strategies should include better education and training of junior doctors, modifications in neuraxial anesthesia practices, and careful handling of the CV drug ampoules and syringes.

Patient monitoring in the nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) setting: current advances in technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) procedures continue to increase in type and complexity as procedural medicine makes technical advances. Patients presenting for NORA procedures are also older and sicker than ever. Commensurate with the requirements of procedural medicine, anesthetic monitoring must meet the American Society of Anesthesiologists standards for basic monitoring.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been improvements in the required monitors that are used for intraoperative patient care. Some of these changes have been with new technologies and others have occurred with software refinements. In addition, specialized monitoring devises have also been introduced into NORA locations (depth of hypnosis, respiratory monitoring, point-of care ultrasound). These additions to the monitoring tools available to the anesthesiologist working in the NORA-environment push the boundaries of procedures which may be accomplished in this setting.

SUMMARY

NORA procedures constitute a growing percentage of total administered anesthetics. There is no difference in the monitoring standard between that of an anesthetic administered in an operating room and a NORA location. Anesthesiologists in the NORA setting must have the same compendium of monitors available as do their colleagues working in the operating suite.

An integrative review of method types used in the study of medication error during anaesthesia: implications for estimating incidence

To meet the WHO vision of reducing medication errors by 50%, it is essential to know the current error rate. We undertook an integrative review of the literature, using a systematic search strategy. We included studies that provided an estimate of error rate (i.e. both numerator and denominator data), regardless of type of study (e.g. RCT or observational study). Under each method type, we categorised the error rate by type, by classification used by the primary studies (e.g. wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time), and then pooled numerator and denominator data across studies to obtain an aggregate error rate for each method type. We included a total of 30 studies in this review. Of these, two studies were national audit projects containing relevant data, and for 28 studies we identified five discrete method types: retrospective recall (6), self-reporting (7), observational (5), large databases (7), and observing for drug calculation errors (3). Of these 28 studies we included 22 for a numerical analysis and used six to inform a narrative review. Drug error is recalled by ~1 in 5 anaesthetists as something that happened over their career; in self-reports there is an admitted rate of ~1 in 200 anaesthetics. In observed practice, error is seen in almost every anaesthetic. In large databases, drug error constitutes ~10% of anaesthesia incidents reported. Wrong drug or dose form the most common type of error across all five study method types (especially dosing error in paediatric studies). We conclude that medication error is common in anaesthetic practice, although we were uncertain of the precise frequency or extent of harm. Studies concerning medication error are very heterogenous, and we recommend consideration of standardised reporting as in other research domains.